2011 (6) TMI 57 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Loss of stock due to fire in premise - Remission of duty - Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - The basis for proposed confirmation of demand is non action on the part of the Commissioner himself, and we fail to understand as to how an assessee can give a reasonable and plausible explanation to the show cause notice, issued in above terms, and defending himself on the ground that why Commissioner has not decided the remission application - the basis for issuance of the show cause notice was lapse on the part of the Commissioner himself in not deciding the remission application and reasoning adopted by the Commissioner in the impugned order having never been disclosed to the appellants either in the show cause notice or at any time during the adjudication, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice - Decided in the favour of assessee by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
Remission of duty on destroyed final products due to fire incident and subsequent confirmation of demand.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the remission of duty on final products destroyed in a fire incident and the confirmation of demand. The appellants were engaged in manufacturing LDPE/HDPE Films/Sheets, Cap Covers, U.V. Films, L.D. Tarpaulins, classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A fire occurred in their factory, leading to the loss of final products. A remission application was filed seeking duty remission as per Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, instead of deciding the remission application, the Commissioner issued a show cause notice proposing to confirm duty on the destroyed goods. The Commissioner's order rejected the remission application and confirmed the duty demand based on various grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice.

The grounds for rejecting remission and confirming the demand included: 1) the fire being avoidable as workers were found sleeping during the incident, 2) the fire occurring in an unauthorized plot not covered by the registration certificate, and 3) the appellants receiving compensation from an insurance claim that included excise duty. The appellants contested these grounds, stating they were not part of the show cause notice, and they were not given an opportunity to respond to these reasons during adjudication. They argued that workers' sleeping did not cause the fire, fire extinguishers were in place, and immediate action was taken. They also clarified the registration error and the insurance compensation not covering excise duty on final products.

The Tribunal found the Commissioner's order violated principles of natural justice as the reasons for rejection were not communicated during the adjudication process. The order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, allowing the appellants an opportunity to address the points raised. The Tribunal granted the stay petition and disposed of the appeal accordingly.